Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LB)
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Ram Kishan - Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow Through its Chairman and 2 Others - Respondents
Misc. Single No. 6315 of 2014
Decided On : 16-2-2016
Land Inheritance - U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 - Section 34, Section 40-A - The court discussed the validity of adoption and wills in a mutation proceeding under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The court emphasized the importance of proving possession and lawful title for mutation and highlighted that revenue records confer no title on the party. The court also clarified the circumstances under which a writ petition can be entertained arising out of mutation proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved inheritance of land after the death of Mula. The petitioner and respondent-3 filed mutation applications based on unregistered and registered wills and an adoption deed. The lower courts made conflicting decisions, with the Deputy Collector and Board of Revenue, U.P. favoring the respondent-3's claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts' decisions were based on the validity of the wills and adoption deed. It emphasized that the mutation proceeding was for fiscal purposes and that the petitioner had the remedy to establish his right over the disputed land in a regular suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the adoption and wills, the relevance of possession and lawful title for mutation, and the circumstances under which a writ petition can be entertained arising out of mutation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mutation proceeding was for fiscal purposes and that revenue records confer no title on the party. It also clarified the circumstances under which a writ petition can be entertained arising out of mutation proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had the remedy to establish his right over the disputed land in a regular suit.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Dubey, for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Tiwari, for the contesting respondent.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Collector dated 05.06.2009 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 04.06.2014 and 25.08.2014, in mutation proceeding under U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The dispute between the parties is for inheritance of land of Mula son of Girwar, resident of village Kharot, pargana Chhata, district Mathura, of khata- 307 (consisting plots 534 (area 1.47 acre), 634 (area 0.34 acre), 668 (area 1.20 acre), 671 (area 0.81 acre) 1311-Aa (area 0.93 acre) and 1311-Ba (area (3.75 acre) situated in aforesaid village. Mula died on 14.09.1989. The petitioner filed an application (registered as Case No. 268-T/191-NT) under Section 34 of the Act, for mutation of his name over the land in dispute, on the basis of unregistered will dated 10.08.1989, before Naib Tahsildar. Amar Chand (respondent-3) filed another application before Tahsildar for mutation of his name over the land in dispute on the ground that Mula had adopted him on 14.03.1969 and later on executed a registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989. Mula also executed a registered will dated 24.02.1989 in his favour. In last 3 years of life, Mula shifted to village Lohna, tahsil Palval, district Faridabad and was residing with his natural father, Bishram and died there. Alleged will dated 10.08.1989 was a forged document.
4. Both the cases were consolidated and tried together. The petitioner filed unregistered will dated 10.08.1989 and examined Bigharam, Amar Chand, Pradhan, Suleman, Jeetaram and Ram Kishan as witnesses. Respondent-3 filed registered will dated 24.02.1989 and registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989 and examined Amar Chand, Bishram, Chokhe Lal, Khayali Ram, Bijendra Singh and Dalu as witnesses. Naib-Tahsildar, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 16.09.1993, held that none of the witnesses of respondent-3 could prove performance of rites of adoption and adoption of respondent-3 by Mula was not proved. All of his witnesses were outsider of village Kharot and relations of respondent-3. In the will, adoption deed, other record of the village Lohna and service-records of respondent-3, his father's name was written as Bishram. It is not proved that Mula had resided at village Lohna or got treatment there and died there. Amar Chand was not in possession of the land in dispute. Possession of Kishan Chand over the land in dispute was proved. On these findings he allowed mutation application of the petitioner and dismissed the application of respondent-3.
5. Respondent-3 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 4 of 2006-07) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Deputy Collector, who by order dated 05.06.2009, held that execution of registered will dated 24.02.1989 and registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989 were proved from the statements of attesting witnesses. It is not probable that a man, who had already executed a registered will dated 24.02.1989, will not refer nor cancel it in his subsequent unregistered will dated 10.08.1989. In will dated 10.08.1989, reason for execution of the will was mentioned to avoid dispute, which could be no reason for executing a will. Naib-Tahsildar has illegally ignored registered will dated 24.02.1989 and registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and directed for mutation of the name of respondent-3 over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2577 (LR) of 2008-2009) from order dated 05.06.2009 before Board of Revenue, U.P. Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 04.06.2014 held that Ram Kishan had filed unregistered will dated 10.08.1989, after much delay before Naib-Tahsildar when Amar Chand filed an application for directing him to produce his will, which is a suspici
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
